header-logo header-logo

19 September 2018
Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Personal injury woes & highs

Quality of service in personal injury market ‘crucial’

Mystery shoppers have uncovered a series of poor responses from personal injury (PI) lawyers, including inappropriate replies, slowness to follow-up and a lack of enthusiasm.

Posing as potential clients, mystery shoppers hired by legal marketing collective First4Lawyers contacted 50 law firms both by telephone and through their website, ranking each firm’s efforts to gain their business.

One mystery shopper revealed: ‘I said it was an accident at work, to which she replied, “lovely, thank you,” with a level of enthusiasm that was entirely inappropriate.’ Another asked for the receptionist’s name three times and was told it didn’t matter because ‘she was going to lunch’.

Where the shopper left a message and the firm had to call back, an astonishing 23% of firms did not do so for more than two days, or at all. On the other hand, 35% of firms had called back within 15 minutes.

The shoppers also reported the lack of a sense that the firm really wanted the work, with only 52% of the firms attempting to add value or ‘go further’ for the potential client, and firms often failing to explain their value to the client and usually not offering to send further information or make a follow-up call.

Nevertheless, four-fifths of firms were ‘warm and engaging’ overall, according to the shoppers. Some 84% of web enquiries led to a telephone conversation. When asked to rate the likelihood of recommending the firm to others on a scale of 1-10, 62% of firms received an 8, 9 or perfect 10.

Qamar Anwar, First4Lawyers’s managing director, said: ‘Low-value PI is an unusual market in that there is no real price competition.

‘So, the quality of service, from the moment the phone rings or the email pings, is crucial. This is especially important given legal regulators’ efforts to encourage consumers to shop around for a lawyer.’

Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll